Highway 14. Though the transportation bill provides more Corridors of Commerce funding, it also requires state officials to rank Corridors of Commerce proposals similarly to the way the Minnesota Department of Transportation ranks its list of road projects.That could mean projects such as the Nicollet to New Ulm stretch of Highway 14 won't get funding, while roads in the metro area could be eligible for extra money.

Area lawmakers say the new regulations violate Corridors of Commerce's intent, to connect regional economic centers throughout the state. GOP leaders say they'll study the language's effects during the 2018 legislative session.

After watching the Republicans stoke the placebaiting game, we're surprised to see them leave a hole the DFL caucus could drive a semi through.

A Mankato member of the Highway 14 Partnership explains the need to finish the Highway 14 project here.

Chart: A graphic illustration of the situation.

If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 313 Park Street, Ortonville, MN 56278) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. Those wishing to make a small ongoing monthly contribution should click on the paypal subscription button.

Olmsted County spent more than $84,000 on lobbying last year. That is a drop from previous years. In 2014, Olmsted County spent nearly $145,000. In 2015, the county spent nearly $92,000.

Olmsted County Administrator Richard Devlin said one reason the county's lobbying bills have dropped is that the county is no longer lobbying in support of a proposed high-speed rail line between Rochester and the Twin Cities at the Capitol. Last year, the Minnesota Department of Transportation announced it suspending work on the proposed Zip Rail line due to a lack of money and political support. The county had also spent money in the past lobbying for road and bridge funding.

If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 33166 770th Ave, Ortonville, MN 56278) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. Those wishing to make a small ongoing monthly contribution should click on the paypal subscription button.

In recent years, there has been plenty of talk about a potential high-speed rail line from Rochester to the Twin Cities. But so far, those efforts have failed to advance. . . .

Reiter said that when it comes to rail, there have been inaccurate statements made in the past about the number of Twin Cities commuters.

"There've been comments in the past going back a number of years that we have a couple of thousand people coming from the Twin Cities that work here. There's just no evidence that's really true," Reiter said.

Instead, he said the numbers are more like 400 to 600. He said those ridership numbers would make a rail line from Rochester to the Twin Cities a challenge — unless there was a connection to Chicago as well.

Could that teeny-tiny data point be the blow to the brain that buries a land-grabbing, short-line high-speed rail project? We hesitate to say yes.

Dear Answer Man, will you answer this once and for all: Is Zip Rail dead or is it not dead?

It's dead.

But what if Zip Rail just looks dead and is a zombie, just waiting for the right moment to get back on track?

At some point down the road, some brave souls may try another plan for a high-speed passenger train between Rochester and the Twin Cities. But I guarantee you that if they do, it won't be called Zip Rail. That name has been rendered unusable by opponents of the project. Its only value now is as a political bogeyman. . . .

That's not enough for Zip Rail opponents such as Rep. Steve Drazkowski, who wants to insert language into a bill to drive yet another stake through the project, removing any reference to Zip Rail in the state rail plain. Drazkowski previously has tried to link Zip Rail to limiting Rochester and Olmsted County's options with Destination Medical Center.

Zip Rail opponents in Dodge County also drove another stake through it last month at a meeting of the Dodge County Rail Authority, reaffirming a three-year-old resolution against the long-defunct project.

To repeat: There's no one in a position of authority regarding trains, planes or automobiles who believes Zip Rail is undead. It's dead. . . .

But I asked Senjem's Rochester Republican colleague, Sen. Carla Nelson, and she says Zip Rail is more in the zombie category. "Nothing is dead until the gavel drops and we adjourn sine die, which is the first first Monday after the third Saturday in an even year -- May 21, 2018.

"Of course, there is always the next legislative session, at which time anything can happen."

Having watched the Minnesota Legislature for years, we're inclined to agree with Nelson. And short of a real zombie outbreak, the legislature will continue to meet, year in, year out.

Photo: Zombie Ziprail isn't exactly like this. It just seems like it (above); Anti-Zombie Ziprail signs near Rochester, Minnesota.

If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 33166 770th Ave, Ortonville, MN 56278) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. Those wishing to make a small ongoing monthly contribution should click on the paypal subscription button.

He’s back at it again. In a legislative email to constituents that was also published as Reform of prevailing wage law will benefit state, a letter in Glencoe’s McLeod County Chronicle. Gruenhagen argues that workers on small public infrastructure projects typical of greater Minnesota should be paid less so that the money would go farther:

One of my chief authored bills, HF508, updates prevailing wage provisions and raises the cost threshold for state government-funded projects that require prevailing wage. Currently, prevailing wage laws only apply to state subsidized projects that exceed a certain dollar amount.

Since infrastructure projects in Greater Minnesota tend to cost less than those in the Metro, raising this cost threshold will allow private contractors to bid on smaller projects without being forced to use union wage scales. The result will be that state tax dollars will go further in funding smaller infrastructure projects, which are more common in Greater Minnesota. . . .

I am a retired construction worker who spent his career building infrastructure in this state. A recent letter in this paper caught my attention. He attacked prevailing wage laws in Minnesota. For those who don’t know, prevailing wage is nothing more than local area standard wages for construction workers.

Gruenhagen called prevailing wage the “union wage.” That’s false. The local wage rate is established by looking at local wages paid on real jobs in our area, both union and nonunion workers benefit. He also fantasizes that we can save millions of dollars by getting rid of prevailing wages and that this will create more jobs. The real reason Gruenhagen wants to mess with prevailing wage is simple, and it has nothing to do with taxpayers. He is working for cheap labor contractors that are using him to get rid of the laws that prevent them from paying workers low wages on public projects. The fact is that Gruenhagen and the business owners he fights for think construction workers in our region make too much money. I’m offended by that.

These people are highly trained workers; they put their lives in danger and spend countless days on the road away from their families building this state. They earn their money, Glenn, every penny. . . .

Read the rest online at the paper.

However, Bluestem wonders whether Gruenhagen might not have to wait long for the cost of labor to come down, and in the spirit of his bill we offer a modest proposal.

That leaves Minnesota with a dilemma, as Republicans put the brakes on sentencing and probation reform, creating more prisoners than there are beds. Let’s put these unfortunate souls into chain gangs that would repair our state’s road and bridges for nothing more than the price of a few guards, orange jumpsuits (blaze pink for the lady offenders), barracks and eggs. Pay them nothing while they learn valuable skills and work habits and soon the price of infrastructure will plummet.

Image: Handsome convicts could reduce the price of Minnesota’s infrastructure beyond Representative Gruenhagen’s wildest dreams and there would probably be a place for prison ministry as well.

If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 33166 770th Ave, Ortonville, MN 56278) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. Those wishing to make a small ongoing monthly contribution should click on the paypal subscription button.

Feb 07, 2017

Back in 2008, a DFL-controlled legislature passed the last gas tax increase in Minnesota, then overrode former Governor Pawlenty's veto with the assistance of a handful of Republican votes. One factor in passing the increase was support for more revenue from the state's ag sector.

There's some movement in this direction in 2017, although the Minnesota Farm Bureau appears to be set against a gas tax increase, according to a statement on its website.

During their annual meeting at the Minnesota Ag Expo in Mankato this week, the Minnesota Corn Growers passed a resolution supporting a gas tax increase of 10 cents per gallon.

Government relations chair Bruce Peterson of Northfield says the hope is it bolsters the chances of getting a transportation bill through the Legislature.

“(we) Feel like that needs to be part of the puzzle with passing a transportation package. In order to do that, we may have to raise the gas tax. Certainly that’s all part of the equation, but maybe part of the solution as far as getting something passed.”

The Minnesota gas tax is currently just over 28 cents per gallon.

Peterson says farmers like him need more dollars set aside to keep up with the state’s aging roads and bridges.

“We’ve got more corn moving year-round with all the ethanol plants, and just more commerce in general. Being we’re in this northern climate, the roads just aren’t holding up. And it seems like we keep falling further and further behind. Also the cost to maintain these roads keeps increasing rapidly.”

State Representative Jeanne Poppe says transportation funding is discussed regularly at the statehouse, and having a group like the Minnesota Corn Growers support a gas tax increase definitely puts it on the list of solutions.

Since the Minnesota Soybean Growers Association also meets in Mankato during Minnesota Ag Expo, Bluestem was curious if the bean farmers had considered the issue as well (many are members of both groups, given the corn-bean rotations many Minnesota farm producers follow).

The Minnesota Soybean Growers Association has passed a resolution that states we "support an increase in the gas tax by up to 10 cents to create a dedicated source of transportation funding."

At our day on the hill today we mentioned our support of an increase in fuel taxes to support transportation funding.

In a phone interview, Minnesota Farmer Union Legislative Director Thom Petersen said that the MFU policy supports an increase but the organization didn't cite a specific amount, unlike the commodity producer groups. Agrinews reported in early January that "MFU strongly supports working to create adequate funding to support Minnesota roads and bridges.”

If rural Republican lawmakers claim that there's no support for a gas tax increase in Greater Minnesota, they're not being entirely accurate with those claims. Imagine that.

Photo: A grain truck and wagon. Transportation infrastructure helps corn and soybean growers haul their inputs and harvests around, and they aren't afraid to pay for it.

If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 33166 770th Ave, Ortonville, MN 56278) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. Those wishing to make a small ongoing monthly contribution should click on the paypal subscription button.

Now he's trolling the governor--and his own constituents--in a letter to the editor of the Morris Sun Tribune, No need for water czar. Read the whole LTE in the Sun Tribune. One paragraph stands out for us:

Here's a word picture to explain a better approach. Traffic congestion in the metro areas took decades to streamline into the interstate systems we now enjoy and take for granted. The traffic congestion was not solved in two years by a "traffic czar" or traffic law proclaiming "let there be no congestion." It took decades of patience, careful planning and concerted efforts by the citizens to solve the problem. In the same way, appointing a "water czar," or hastily passing ill-crafted buffer laws proclaiming "let the water pollution be solved by 2018" is poorly conceived and will not accomplish constructive and lasting results.

What in the wild, wild world of sports is Backer talking about? Neither anecdotal experience nor traffic studies suggest that "[t]raffic congestion in the metro areas took decades to streamline into the interstate systems" in which we've managed "solve the problem" of congestion. Nor was the planning of the metro's interstate system a kumbaya moment in our state's history.

First, about that "solved" problem of congestion. Just last month, the American Transportation Research Institute (not a bunch of dirty hippies flogging Agenda 21, but the research wing of the American Trucking Associations) sent out a press release noting Twin Cities Home to Four of the Nation's Worst Truck Bottlenecks:

The American Transportation Research Institute today released its annual list highlighting the most congested bottlenecks for trucks in America, including four in Minnesota.

The 2017 Top Truck Bottleneck List assesses the level of truck-oriented congestion at 250 locations on the national highway system. The analysis, based on truck GPS data from 600,000+ heavy duty trucks uses several customized software applications and analysis methods, along with terabytes of data from trucking operations to produce a congestion impact ranking for each location. The data is associated with the FHWA-sponsored Freight Performance Measures (FPM) initiative. The locations detailed in this latest ATRI list represent the top 100 congested locations.

"Minnesota is home to 17 Fortune 500 companies, making it a major freight generator and player in the nation's economy," said Minnesota Trucking Association President John Hausladen. "ATRI's analysis allows us to target state and federal resources to keep trucks, and the economy, moving."

The four bottlenecks in Minnesota, all located in the Twin Cities, are:

No. 45 – I-35W at I-94

No. 55 – I-35W at I-494

No. 71 – I-35W at I-694

No. 88 – I-35E at I-94

"Trucks move 70% of the nation's goods, so knowing where our highway system is most congested can lead to better decisions about what highways and bridges need improvement," said American Trucking Associations President Chris Spear, "and it is our hope that ATRI's research will guide states toward improving these pain points in the supply chain so our industry can continue to safely and efficiently moving the nation's goods."

For access to the full report, including detailed information on each of the 100 top congested locations, click here.

It’s not just your brakelight-riddled imagination: Freeway congestion in and around Minneapolis and St. Paul was the worst on record last year, according to a new report from Minnesota Department of Transportation.

The agency’s annual report on freeway congestion said congestion was up from 21.1 percent in 2014 to 23.4 percent last year. That’s the highest number since the agency started collecting data in 1993.

Severe congestion, lasting longer than 2 hours, was at 7.6 percent, the highest it’s been in at least a decade, MnDOT said.

Congestion is measured as a percentage of the metro’s 758 freeway miles on which traffic is moving at less than 45 miles per hour. That’s the speed at which disruptions like crashes, stalls or overcapacity ramps can trigger widespread breakdowns in the flow of traffic, the agency said.

Unsurprisingly, I-35W, I-394 and the I-494/694 loop are the most snarled stretches, with the worst of it coming near the I-35W/I-94 interchange.

The agency said road design improvements, MnPASS express-lane expansion and active traffic management and information are all part of its effort to ease congestion — but warned that projected increases in travel, an improving economy and higher road construction costs are all expected to worsen the problem.

Given these results, Bluestem has to wonder why Backer (or the hapless GOP House staffer writer assigned to him) selected the process of freeway construction as the model for water quality efforts in rural Minnesota. If he think this is "solved" congestion in the metro, we'd hate to let our dog and chickens drink "clean" water determined by a similar process out here.

The section of I-94 between Minneapolis and Saint Paul was completed in 1968. In the Twin Cities, the construction of the highway was politically charged. The highway was built primarily through many working-class and African-American neighborhoods.[5][4] In Saint Paul, the routing of I-94 is set through and displaces the historic Rondo neighborhood, which prior to the highway construction was the largest African-American community in Saint Paul. By uprooting almost the entire neighborhood, the highway disrupted the vitality of the Saint Paul African American community.[3][2][4] This history influenced the July 2016 blockade of nearby I-35W* [I-94] by Black Lives Matter protesters, to whom the freeways are symbols of oppressive urban policy.[6]

One wonders whether Backer and staff ghostwriter would think Rondo lives mattered, if either indeed knew that the neighborhood had once existed. It wouldn't be the first time Backer made factual error about an urban population, given the invidious comparisons he's made between flood victims in Browns Valley and New Orleans or odd statements about urban transportation.

Irony sidenote: not surprisingly, Backer is a co-author ofHF0390, which increases penalties obstructing traffic to a highway or airport, a bill spawned by those freeway blockades.

Gov. Mark Dayton is making another push to clean up Minnesota’s waters — and says he’s learned lessons from his contentious battle two years ago to implement buffer strips along the state’s waterways.

In a speech Friday morning to the Minnesota Environmental Congress, the DFL governor said he’ll propose improving Minnesota’s water quality 25 percent by the year 2025.

But he’s not proposing specific tools to accomplish that reduction just yet. Instead, he says he’ll solicit citizen input around the state this summer and make proposals based on that input in 2018.

“One of the lessons I learned with the buffer legislation is that it was criticized as a top-down, one-size-fits-all mandate,” Dayton said Friday. “I have my own ideas. I can advance those next year. But I want to let this process unfold and get citizens themselves engaged and citizens themselves feeling their own investment in the outcome.” . . .

That lesson is quite a bit different from the one Backer draws from Dayton, and it's ironic that the Pioneer Press article appeared on the same day as Backer's letter.

But then, Backer's learned that he can get re-elected inventing whatever he wants about the Evil Metro, which hasn't just solved its traffic congestion problem, but is always out to get him as well.

*I-35W was blocked by a separate group, primarily white allies, the Pioneer Press reported, while I-94 had been blocked the Saturday night before the weekday action.

Photo: Could this be Backer dreaming about a buffer law repeal during the farmers' panel after lunch at the Water Summit in Morris, his twin brother, or just another guy who looks ? Whatever the cast, it's clear Backer's asleep at the wheel when it comes to talking about Evil Metro area congestion or about the current details of Governor Dayton's water quality plan. Read more about the questions about this photo in Republican guy who voted for Minnesota's buffer bill continues to grandstand against it

. (Photo submitted by a former Backer constituent).

If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 33166 770th Ave, Ortonville, MN 56278) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. Those wishing to make a small ongoing monthly contribution should click on the paypal subscription button.

It's not a rural versus metro thing, the statements by both women made clear. What they didn't address is who is putting off bonding. To learn about that, Bluestem recommends Don Davis's piece for Forum Communications from late December, Don’t bet on big 2017 Minnesota bonding bill:

. . . While Republicans hold the majority in the House and Senate, they do not have enough votes to reach the required super majority to borrow money. That means Democrats who want a bigger bill, and different projects than the GOP wants, will have a say.

“We are open to a bonding bill, but it would be end of session,” said Sen. Paul Gazelka, R-Nisswa, who will be Senate majority leader. . . .

[Dean]Urdahl predicted a bonding bill for “some pressing projects,” but a big one will not come until 2018, “the way it normally is done.”

The representative handing the bonding gavel to Urdahl, Republican Paul Torkelson of Hanska, said he “would be very surprised” if there is a big 2017 bonding bill, adding that “it is really too bad.”

So what's the rest of Minnesota waiting for while one private sector--agriculture--goes to the head of the line? Hausman explains that it may set a precedent of individual projects going forward but other equally worthy projects being left behind. She cited an article from the Worthington Globe noting that legislators from that area are suggesting this:

Everyone in St. Paul agrees the Lewis & Clark Regional Water System needs to come to Worthington, but that isn’t the problem.

Robinson said while both houses and the Governor’s office are all in agreement that funding for the Lewis & Clark connection to Worthington is in their bill, the bonding bill is one of the last things that will be done in the legislative session in late May.

“It’s where all the bargaining chips are held; it’s the last piece of negotiation,” Robinson said.

Robinson, Hamilton and Weber don’t want to wait that long to get construction started. That’s why they’re working on standalone legislation to free up approximately $8 million in surplus funds from the money used on phase two construction from Magnolia to Adrian to be used on phase three. The extra money, which resulted from favorable bids, is locked up with a restriction that it can only be used for phase two construction.

Combined with $9 million in federal funds, Robinson said the money would get a majority of the construction done, but not all of it. The city and Lewis & Clark officials want to get the money as soon as possible in order to go out to bid early and get favorable bids.

“If it stays in the bonding bill and it passes, it would be late May, and we would lose much if not all of the 2017 construction season,” Robinson said. “The plans are done, and the easements are in place. So, if we had that $8 million, we could go out to bid within several weeks.”

As Hausman notes, other projects across the state face the problem of losing a construction season. Here's her observation:

Liebling also questioned why HF14 jumps ahead of other projects. She understood that the Minnesota Department of Agriculture couldn't make the loans for farmers but didn't know why this was more urgent than a leaking dam in Lanesboro and other infrastructure issues around the state that everyone feels are urgent in their communities.

Here's her question:

Miller responded that there was a timeliness in HF14 in that farmers need to get crops in during the spring. However, we're puzzled how this argument cancels the point that Hausman made about the construction industry, which like farming is bound by Minnesota's pronounced seasons.

We're seeing this frame--farmers' needs over those of others and "Greater Minnesota" defined as farmers vs the metro and regulators (Cargill CEO Greg Page at the Water Summit)--act as a shorthand in policy questions.

It obscures the needs of small cities for drinking water and wastewater system replacements, the Lewis and Clark water pipeline, the dam at Lanesboro, and dozens of other projects across Great Minnesota.

It's as if Minnesota outside of the metro is nothing but a monoculture of farms and nothing else. This is a lazy and divisive frame. By all means pass this bill--but let it be the exception and not the rule.

The legislature should knock it off treating the bonding bill as the item "where all the bargaining chips are held; it’s the last piece of negotiation," and instead get a bonding bill that funds projects across the state. Many of these were vetted last year--and a new construction season begins mere weeks from now.

We'd like to see construction workers, farmers, and more all prosper. Get working, representatives and senators.

Photo: The Lanesboro Dam.

If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 33166 770th Ave, Ortonville, MN 56278) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. Those wishing to make a small ongoing monthly contribution should click on the paypal subscription button.

That skepticism comes as the status of the private company that had been pushing the project is unclear. The North American High Speed Rail Group had been leading the charge to do something never before done in America — privately fund a high-speed rail line.The company estimated the $4.2 billion rail line could make the trip from Rochester to Bloomington within 29 minutes.

But questions are swirling as to what has happened to the ail group. Visitors to North American High Speed Rail Group's website are instead referred to a website for "Minnesota Corridor." Wendy Meadley, who served as the rail group's chief strategy officer, states on her LinkedIn page that she left the company in October. She also terminated her status as a lobbyist for the rail group on Nov. 2, according to the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board.

Meadley declined a request for comment.

Records show that Meadley purchased the web domain name for Minnesota Corridor — mnhsr.com. Meanwhile, Joseph Wang's LinkedIn page still lists him as chairman and CEO of the North American High Speed Rail Group. Wang could not be reached for comment.

Minnesota Department of Transportation spokesman Kevin Gutknecht said the agency has not heard from the rail group or "anyone on a related topic for a number of months."

This lack of activity might encourage some to suggest that proposed legislation should be dropped as does one Rochester Republican, Carlson reports:

Some fellow Republican lawmakers are speaking out against the legislation — not because of what is in the bill but because they do not believe the high-speed rail project is going to happen.

"It seems like a waste of energy. It's probably great for voters in their districts. I just don't see it having any real impact," said Rep. Nels Pierson, R-Rochester.

Opponents of the proposed high-speed rail line are also left wondering what happened to the rail group. Heather Arndt, co-chairwoman of Citizens Concerned About Rail, said it has been nearly a year since she talked to Meadley. Despite the uncertainty surrounding the private company, she said it is important rail opponents keep up the fight.

"Until it's good, dead, buried and six feet under, we're staying engaged," Arndt said. "We're continuing to work with elected officials at all levels and stay engaged and watch it. These are our homes and our communities and businesses and we are not going to walk away from it while it could still come back around."

Sound strategy, given the fact that this zombie project has yet to experience clear head shot. Since first learning about concerns about the project from Minnesota Farmers Union members while serving as a member of the group's policy committee, this seemed like a "flyover" project that positioned convenience over local landowners and communities needs and rights.

Read about the legislation against the project in the Post Bulletin article.

Image: Marge Simpson found the passenger rail project office in the cartoon series. It's been a bit harder pinning down the folks behind the southeastern Minnesota private rail project.

JANUARY FUNDRAISING DRIVE

Please donate! If you enjoy Bluestem's take on the news--and our investigative blogging--please consider throwing some spare change into our paypal account during our January contribution drive. Bluestem relies on reader contributions to continue publishing.

If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 33166 770th Ave, Ortonville, MN 56278) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

The prospect of a high-speed rail line slicing through the rural stretch of land between the Twin Cities and Rochester, and financed by Chinese and other private investors, is to some an exquisite dream.

To others, it’s folly.

. . .[A] privately held Bloomington firm called the North American High Speed Rail Group (NAHSR) is keeping the idea of a high-speed rail line alive. Recently the group said that it was reorganizing and is now known as the Minnesota Corridor Project. None of NAHSR’s officers has experience developing such a project. [emphasis added]

The group’s reorganization will continue to meet opposition from a determined grass-roots group called Citizens Concerned About Rail Line (CCARL) and several southern Minnesota lawmakers.

It might be helpful for the newly reorganized group tell the Minnesota Secretary of State's office about that new name as well.

While Meadley owns the domain name, she doesn't list either the North American High Speed Rail Group nor the Minnesota Corridor as current employers in her LinkedIn profile (below) as of January 9, 2017. Of course, there's no law (that we know of) requiring the Social Wendy Group to actualize its client list.

We could go on....as must likely this grifters' dreamscape will appear every once in a while, as did "Wendy Meadley sitting on a bench on the ground floor of the State Office Bldg" last Thursday, a source tells us in an email.

Screenshots: Top: the Minnesota Corridor's website (side note--thank heavens CCARL is good about keeping screenshots of the old pages in case journalists ever want documentation of earlier manifestations of the project. Bottom: Wendy Meadley's LinkedIn profile as of January 9, 2017.

Please donate! If you enjoy Bluestem's take on the news--and our investigative blogging--please consider throwing some spare change into our paypal account during our January contribution drive. Bluestem relies on reader contributions to continue publishing.

If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 33166 770th Ave, Ortonville, MN 56278) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Opposition to the project was spearheaded by the grassroots group Citizens Concerned About Rail Line. Members have cited a number of grievances with high-speed rail, including disruption of farmland and the threat of eminent domain [by the private entity for private profit].

Co-chair Heather Arndt said CCARL stayed engaged with MnDOT and local legislators in 2016 as well as researched NAHSR and its proposal.

"We have yet to find any means by which the proposed line produces any level of independent fiscal solvency or any proof that NAHSR's leadership has any experience in any aspect of a successful rail line," Arndt wrote in an email Dec. 15. . . .

Goodhue County Board adopted an update to the county's Comprehensive Plan in June featuring language that land-uses not specifically mentioned in the plan should not be assumed to have the county's approval — a change commissioners said was made to prevent projects like Zip Rail from claiming local support.

Rep. Steve Drazkowski, R-Mazeppa said he has spoken with fellow Republicans Sen.-elect Mike Goggin and Rep.-elect Barb Haley of Red Wing to bring forward legislation to protect the interests of citizens in the upcoming session.

"Nowhere in the world is high-speed rail accomplished without massive public subsidies," Drazkowski said. "It is my responsibility to protect my constituents and the people of our fine state from suffering financially from yet another massive taxpayer liability that could accrue with any high-speed train effort." . . .

There's that. Read the entire article at the Republican Eagle.

Image: Those who thought that anti-high-speed-rail grassroots group CCARL was populated by hicks (like Gabby Johnson in his famous role as a rambling rail resister in Blazing Saddles) learned to their dismay instead that Greater Minnesotans are in reality a bit better at organizing than the hayseeds in Mel Brooks' fabulous satire.

If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 33166 770th Ave, Ortonville, MN 56278) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

President-elect Trump’s pledge to spend billions of dollars on new road and bridge projects could dramatically reshape Minnesota’s transportation priorities, potentially bringing private investment to finance massive public works projects.

In Minnesota and across the nation, elected leaders are scrambling to find ways to pay for road and bridge repair, hampered by limited taxpayer dollars and stiff political resistance to raising the gasoline tax.

Even before he has taken office, Trump’s team has pitched a private investment model that would devote more than $100 billion in tax incentives to lure private businesses to invest in projects.

To recoup their investments, these projects would typically have a revenue stream attached — like a toll on roads or a fare to ride a train. This model could breathe new life into fledging projects like a proposed high-speed train from Minneapolis to Rochester, home of Mayo Clinic. . . .

But some transportation advocates worry the private investment model won’t work in all cases, particularly in rural areas that need new wastewater plants or road repairs.

“If this is the be-all-end-all, it’s not going to be terribly helpful,” said Margaret Donahoe executive director of the Minnesota Transportation Alliance. “It certainly wouldn’t help with greater Minnesota or help with the maintenance of roads and bridges we really need.”

One of the more interesting points of the House Transportation debate was the discussion of an amendment to rename a rural Minnesota highway a “goat trail.” The amendment, offered by House DFL Minority Leader, Paul Thissen (DFL-Minneapolis) stemmed from comments to the StarTribune by freshman Rep. Tim Miller (R-Prinsburg) that Hwy 12 “is in about as good a shape as a goat trail.” The amendment was to ostensibly draw attention to the state of Greater Minnesota roads. In the end, the amendment was withdrawn after nearly 45 mins of debates on “goat trails.

Somehow, Bluestem suspects that private investors won't find the opportunity to fix US Highway by building a toll road between Kerkhoven and Ortonville all that attractive. But using eminent domain to seize property for real estate development along a private elevated train from the south suburbs to Rochester, while also grabbing a tax break? Hot damn.

Trump promised to drain the swamp. Perhaps he just meant wetlands along the corridors of toll roads and such.

Photo: Rural Minnesotans voted overwhelmingly for Donald Trump, whose plans for privatizing investment in transportation may help that SEMN bullet train they don't much like, while leaving the Tim Miller Memorial Goat Trail behind. At least we won't be condescended to or something, even if those private ventures manage to avoid paying prevailing wages. See our October post: Gruenhagen: repairing MN’s aging roads & bridges affordable if we pay workers less.

If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 33166 770th Ave, Ortonville, MN 56278) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Dec 15, 2016

According to her LinkedIn profile, Wendy Meadley's role as Chief Strategy Officer for the North American High Speed Rail Group ended in October 2016 (see screengrab above). She appears from news reports to remain as a spokester for the private rail scheme.

Those looking for an answer to whether private investors will build a high-speed rail line from Rochester to the Twin Cities will just have to keep on waiting.

Wendy Meadley, who has been overseeing the rail project work, said Tuesday that no final decision has been made on whether to move ahead with the project, but she said there are several investors who remain interested in supporting it.

between the Twin Cities and Rochester, and financed by Chinese and other private investors, is to some an exquisite dream.

To others, it’s folly.

The proposed $4.2 billion train would travel between the two cities at 220 miles an hour in 30 to 45 minutes, a trip that takes twice as long by car. Once known as Zip Rail, the project was abandoned earlier this year by the Minnesota Department of Transportation and Olmsted County after nearly 25 years of study, due to a dearth of funds.

But a privately held Bloomington firm called the North American High Speed Rail Group (NAHSR) is keeping the idea of a high-speed rail line alive. Recently the group said that it was reorganizing and is now known as the Minnesota Corridor Project. None of NAHSR’s officers has experience developing such a project.

There's no organization or business called "Minnesota Corridor Project" registered with the Minnesota Secretary of State's office, according to a search of the SOS's online records. Nor can we find mention online of this entity outside of the Star Tribune article, in which Meadley is described in this language:

The ultimate goal would be a high-speed connection to Chicago, said Wendy Meadley, spokeswoman for the Minnesota Corridor Project. “The true Holy Grail is Chicago.” . . .

Is this project now just the Ghost of Pipe Dreams Past?

Screengrab: Wendy Meadley's LinkedIn profile.

If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 33166 770th Ave, Ortonville, MN 56278) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

The prospect of a high-speed rail line slicing through the rural stretch of land between the Twin Cities and Rochester, and financed by Chinese and other private investors, is to some an exquisite dream.

To others, it’s folly.

. . .[A] privately held Bloomington firm called the North American High Speed Rail Group (NAHSR) is keeping the idea of a high-speed rail line alive. Recently the group said that it was reorganizing and is now known as the Minnesota Corridor Project. None of NAHSR’s officers has experience developing such a project.

The group’s reorganization will continue to meet opposition from a determined grass-roots group called Citizens Concerned About Rail Line (CCARL) and several southern Minnesota lawmakers.

“Do we want Chinese foreign nationals owning the major transportation corridor cutting through the southern portion of Minnesota?” said Rep. Steve Drazkowski, R-Mazeppa. “I don’t think so.” He plans on reintroducing legislation next year that would cripple efforts to build high-speed rail.

Some residents along the route fear that their farms and homes could be taken for public use through eminent domain, a prospect they find even more distasteful because it would be a private company engaged in the taking. They also worry about the project’s impact on the area’s environment, safety and quality of life. And they question whether there’s sufficient ridership to sustain the service.

“There’s nowhere near the capacity to support this,” said CCARL co-founder Heather Arndt, whose farm in Hader is a few miles away from the proposed rail corridor. “There’s no economic benefit for us or local businesses. By taking our farmland, they’re decreasing our income and devaluing our land. . . .

While none of this is a news flash for Bluestem readers, we're happy the Strib is looking beyond the rail group's press releases. Good work.

A year ago Olmsted County took a $2 million loss when MnDOT officially killed zip rail, so why won't it stay dead? . . .

Among the many funny elements of this pipe dream are that it would run entirely down the median of Highway 52, elevated to fly over all crossroads. And the biggest laffer is that the investment would be covered by passenger fares and "high valued" freight like "medical samples."

As Chairman Steve Drazkowski has said, legislation will be presented to the next session of the Legislature to close the door on any MnDOT participation in this scheme.

So signs saying "NO ZOMBIE ZIP RAIL" keep springing up because no one in Goodhue County supports it, and even letter-to-the-editor writers in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune sound dubious.

There's that.

Photo: These yard signs sprang up in warmer weather. Maybe they'll hepl folks understand that common people don't much like the idea that a private firm can use eminent domain to take property for private gain, and such concepts make the peasants resentful. It's not rocket science.

If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 33166 770th Ave, Ortonville, MN 56278) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

As global temperatures warm, Minnesota residents need to prepare for increases in catastrophic "mega-rains" and a greater spread of tick-borne illnesses such as Lyme disease, according to a draft environmental report card for the state.

The report card comes from the Environmental Quality Board, a coordinating body for state government agencies on environmental issues. The board will discuss the draft Dec. 21. The final version will provide a foundation for the Minnesota Environmental Congress in February.

The report card is organized around five key areas: water, land, air, energy and climate. Each section uses three metrics to assess how well Minnesota's environment is doing in those areas. It rates their current status as green, yellow and red to correspond with good, OK and poor. And it uses up arrows, flat arrows or down arrows to indicate recent trends.

"We're hoping it's pretty user-friendly. It's designed for a broad audience," Will Seuffert, the EQB's executive director, said Monday.

Bluestem has downloaded the EQB agenda packet for December 21, 2016, since we agree wth Seuffert's assessment about this document being designed for a broader audience and split out the document for our readers.

If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 33166 770th Ave, Ortonville, MN 56278) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Those looking for an answer to whether private investors will build a high-speed rail line from Rochester to the Twin Cities will just have to keep on waiting.

Wendy Meadley, who has been overseeing the rail project work, said Tuesday that no final decision has been made on whether to move ahead with the project, but she said there are several investors who remain interested in supporting it.

t has been two-and-a-half months since North American High Speed Rail Group hosted representatives of China Railway International in Minnesota. The company wants to do something never before done in the U.S. — privately build a high-speed rail line. The plan calls for a $4.2 billion, elevated high-speed rail line to link Rochester and Bloomington. Most of the rail line would be built in the median of U.S. 52.

Meadley said no legal agreement has been reached with China Railway International to build the high-speed rail project. . . .

But the high-speed rail project is likely to face some push back at the Minnesota Capitol next year. Republicans will be in control of both the Senate and House, and many are wary of rail projects. Sen.-elect Mike Goggin, R-Red Wing, pledged during his campaign that the first bill he will introduce in January will be aimed at blocking the project.

Goggin said he wants to make sure no public money is spent on the project. He also wants to pass legislation to prevent eminent domain from being used to acquire land for the project. His bill will require the rail company to set up a decommissioning fund to ensure that if the project fails, taxpayers aren't stuck paying for it.

"There is not going to be any government money spent on this project. If they are going to somehow be able to do this, it is going to be on their own dime," Goggin said.

The project has faced fierce opposition from rural communities along the U.S. 52 corridor. Residents have expressed concern about the potential use of eminent domain and how that would impact farmers, small business owners and homeowners. . . .

Meadley can blather on about potential partners--as she has done for years now--but this seems like a train that's going nowhere.

November 23, 2016 (Minneapolis, Minnesota) These statement are being made as part of a previous commitment for a “go/no go statement" on behalf of the North American High Speed Rail Group and its Minnesota Department of Transportation work permits that conclude on December 1, 2016.

There is now robust excitement and interest to advance the high speed passenger and freight rail service and its significant development potential. NAHSR looks forward to ongoing participation alongside the many stakeholders, developers and investors now focused on this effort.

We have acquired the information needed relating to the topographic and geologic features of the planned corridor and have determined that an extension of Minnesota Department of Transportation permit is not required at this time.

There are currently several technical and strategic partners that are joining hands to participate with regional stakeholders to bring high speed passenger and freight rail service to this important corridor, and supporting the vision of a future high speed rail program connecting the Twin Cities to Chicago Illinois, via Rochester, Minnesota. Periodic updates regarding project progress will be distributed as information becomes available.

That's some word soup, a thin gruel rather than a "robust" porridge, especially in light of legislative opposition and well-organized resistance in a part of the state where ordinary people have turned back a plan for a poorly-sited wind farm and secured township and county ordinances that put the brakes on the frac sand industry.

Image: This project reminds us of pop cultural iconic images about popular resistance to rail, from the Simpsons to Blazing Saddles.

If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 33166 770th Ave, Ortonville, MN 56278) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

"Car rental taxes are an easy target for politicians because they only affect visitors, not residents, right? Wrong. Short term rental services have sprung up, catering to downtown residents and others who don't need or want the cost and upkeep of owning a vehicle. But the service couldn't survive with the high rental car taxes plus the high local taxes and fees in the twin cities. It was a double whammy. So Car2go will be gone by the end of the year."

Anderson adds the headnote: "interesting maybe something that could be fixed in the legislative session."

That might be a little--how do we say?--awkward, given that Representative Jeff Backer favors the Minnesota Republican caucus transportation plan, or so he told Morris's KMRS-KKOK Radio in February's State Representative Backer on Transportation Plan:

Ahead of this Friday’s February Budget Forecast, Representative Jeff Backer, R-Browns Valley, is urging support for a long-term transportation plan that would invest $7 billion in state roads and bridges over the next 10 years without an increase in the gas tax. In total, the plan would repair or replace more than 15,500 lane miles of road and 330 bridges statewide.

“As I have traveled across the district, I consistently hear from constituents about the need to improve our roads and bridges,” said Backer. “Our plan not only makes significant investments in our transportation infrastructure, it does so without implementing a harmful gas tax increase.”

Over the next ten years, the Republican proposal invests:

$4.03 billion for state roads $1.44 billion for county roads $583 million for municipal roads $282 million for small cities under 5,000 $139 million for Greater Minnesota bus services $60 million for township roads & bridges

The Republican proposal creates a special fund called the Transportation Stability Fund that collects existing proceeds from dedicated tax revenues and deposits them into accounts for each of their dedicated purpose. There are five accounts that would dedicate a combined $3.078 billion over ten years:

Backer repeated his support for using existing car rental taxes for the Small Cities Account in a March 2016 legislative update. Nice of him and his conservative colleagues to grab those high rental taxes from an urban car service and other rentals to pay "for street and road repair over the next ten years for communities that have less than 5,000 residents."

Predictably, conservatives in the PiPress's comment section are blaming the rental vehicle tax on those darned liberals, while the intern who wrote the article doesn't seem to have thought to mention that redirecting the tax from general revenues to the proposed "Transportation Stability Fund" is a key feature of the Republicans' avoidance of raising the gas tax.

Perhaps they could save Car2Go and lower or eliminate the vehicle rental tax--but then Backer and his pals have to find another money pot somewhere to rob for the the Metro Capital Improvements Account and the Small Cities Account.

What additional programs paid out of general funds (diverted under to the plan to the new fund) will get the axe? Mental health funding? Local government aid? Daycare for the children of the working poor? The possibilities are endless--but we doubt the legislators' mileage requests will be in play.

Screengrab: We must say, politicians like those in the Minnesota House Republican Caucus most certainly did find the pot o' money collected with car rental taxes to be an easy target when proposing to raise more money for roads and bridges while not raising gas taxes. Cough.

If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 33166 770th Ave, Ortonville, MN 56278) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Bluestem is left to guess that opponents of new passenger rail lines--and the use of eminent domain to secure some of the property upon which those rails would be laid--had other issues that led them to vote for Donald Trump for president.

Last March, Trump compared the United States rail system to that of a third world country. He lauded China for quickly building a nationwide high-speed rail system. "[The Chinese] have trains that go 300 miles per hour," said Trump. "We have trains that go chug-chug-chug."

During his election night victory speech, Trump emphasized that one of his top priorities will be funding a massive infrastructure program that could include high-speed rail projects across the nation.

Infrastructure has been a hot topic over the last few weeks, and it’s one thing both political parties agree on. America’s bridges, roads, airports and schools need improvement and President-elect Donald Trump has promised a lot of investment. The markets have noticed. Copper and iron ore are up — a lot. But commodities are volatile, so it's unclear how long this spike will last.

Trump’s plan calls for tax relief for private businesses that invest in infrastructure projects. In doing so, the plan said, the national debt would not increase. Heidi Crebo-Rediker, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and CEO of International Capital Strategies, said private investment can be good, but this plan only includes private investment.

"If you look at this as a taxpayer, do you pay your taxes to fund infrastructure investment that can then rely on cheap government borrowing to invest in those projects?" she asked,"or do you go down the path where you have equity investors that will invest and then borrow what would be more expensive funds?"

And whose privately built projects would require user fees — for example, tolls on new bridges and roads. . . .

Why does that suggest to Bluestem that President-elect Trump will think a privately-funded (with tax breaks for wealthy investors) high-speed rail line is "huge"?

As for Mr. Trump's thoughts on the use of eminent domain by private investors for private gain, we recommend reading Ilya Somin's 2015 article in the Washington Post, Donald Trump’s history of eminent domain abuse. Somin writers in part:

. . . On this issue, unlike most others, Trump has been consistent over time. When the Supreme Court narrowly upheld “economic development” takings that transfer property to private parties in the 2005 Kelo case, the ruling was widely denounced on both left and right. But Trump defended it stating that “I happen to agree with it 100%. if you have a person living in an area that’s not even necessarily a good area, and … government wants to build a tremendous economic development, where a lot of people are going to be put to work and … create thousands upon thousands of jobs and beautification and lots of other things, I think it happens to be good.” The feral cats who currently occupy the condemned land probably agree. Trump did not merely claim that the decision was legally correct; he argued that it was “good” to give government the power to forcibly displace homeowners and small businesses and transfer their property to influential developers on the theory that doing so might promote “economic development.”

Both the Kelo case and Trump’s efforts to benefit from eminent domain exemplify a longstanding pattern under which that power is used to take land away from the political weak and transfer it to influential private interests. In the long run, as cities like Detroit have learned, such assaults on property rights undermine development far more than they promote it. . . .

Ah! But losing a part of one's property so that rich investors can profit is just a small sacrifice Goodhue County landowners can contribute as we make America great again.

Image: Goodhue County is fly-over country for the as-yet imaginary elevated high speed rail line. This map from the NAHSRG website illustrates where the rails might run over the county.

If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 33166 770th Ave, Ortonville, MN 56278) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Rochester Mayor Ardell Brede recently criticized Governor Mark Dayton for not being partisan enough and for being too conservative. Future historians may disagree with this assessment. However, perhaps his most incredible statement was that the proposed “private” passenger railway between MSP and Rochester “just makes good sense economically all the way around.”

Really?

Let’s assume that there is a group of billionaires with an extra $4.2 billion burning a hole in their pockets and they really were looking at a private passenger rail system from downtown Rochester to MSP as a cash cow. How would the numbers work out for them?

It’s safe to assume that these investors are smart enough to want a return on their investments. 3% seems low considering the risk involved (if this truly was a private venture), but we’ll go with that. Knowing that they have a depreciating asset that would eventually need future repair/replacement and would have a limited resale value (because there can’t be too many billionaires sitting around who are just itching to buy their own private passenger rail system), they would likely want to eventually get their initial investment paid back so they can reinvest in its next version or sell it at a reduced cost for the next billionaire to upgrade. Let’s assume they think long-term and are willing to wait 30 years for their initial investment to get totally paid down.

Using the above, very conservative, numbers, this private zip rail project would have to generate $17,707,400.00 in monthly profits (not revenue). Assuming that operating expenses would consume one-third of each passenger’s daily one-way fare of $30 (to pay such things as labor, energy, taxes, management and taxes), it would take 29,512 paid one-way trips each day to pay each day’s bills of $590,247.00,

Assuming that half of the passengers start at MSP and half at downtown Rochester and that each would return home at the end of the day, that means that 7,378 people are going to wake up each day and drive to MSP, find a parking space and buy their $30 ticket to Rochester. Additionally, another 7,378 people are going to have to wake up each morning, drive to downtown Rochester, find parking and buy their $30 ticket to MSP.

Do we truly believe this will happen?

Setting aside worries about how billionaires can justify this investment, we should look at whether this project “makes good sense” for the people of Rochester and southeast Minnesota.

Does it make good sense to promote Mayo Clinic visitors spending their nights in the Twin Cities instead of in our hotels, restaurants and shops?

Does it make good sense for our doctors to return each night to their homes in Wayzata and Edina instead of investing in homes in our communities?

Does it make good sense to even pretend that “private” railway could be elevated in the Highway 52 corridor when, as the Answer Man has already pointed out, the CapX2020 lines are already placed in that corridor and crisscross over the highway at least 10 times over that route, making it impossible to keep the needed separation between the top of the railcar and the bottom high voltage line?

Does it make sense to forcibly take private property – both within the City of Rochester and all along the route (since it is not feasible to build it along the highway) in order to benefit another “private” enterprise (the investors in this project)?

Does it make sense to pretend that our boondoggle is somehow tied to the rumored Las Vegas to Los Angeles boondoggle and we must hurry to get fleeced first?

Let’s face the facts. High-speed rail between Rochester and MSP is a dream for a few people connected with DMC. Like many dreams, it features grandiose ideas and is nonsensical. Thankfully, most dreamers wake up refreshed and reconnect with reality; those who don’t run the risk of turning their lives into nightmares.

It would be a nightmare for the residents of Rochester, southeast Minnesota, and the taxpayers of the state for this project to move forward, meet its inevitable failure and have to be supported ad infinitum by our tax dollars. Let’s end this folly now and realize that, Anyway you look at it, this project does not make good sense.

If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 33166 770th Ave, Ortonville, MN 56278) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Oct 31, 2016

In the Morris Sun Tribune story, Backer, McNamar tackle issues at forum, a newspaper actually did a bit of fact checking of claims made in a candidate debate. The results aren't pretty for Representative Jeff Backer:

A Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities official said in a political forum in Morris it was mainly a disappointing year in the Legislature in 2015-2016 in large part because no bonding bill or transportation bill or tax bill were passed.

During a Coalition-sponsored forum in Morris Oct. 20 between Minnesota House District 12A Rep. Jeff Backer and challenger Jay McNamar placed the blame for the disappointment at different feet.

Backer said Gov. Dayton prevented a tax bill that had bipartisan support from passing into legislation. Dayton cared more about the light rail in the Twin Cities area than a tax bill that would benefit rural Minnesota including District 12A, Becker said.

Not so, McNamar said. The Republican controlled House submitted a tax bill with a $100 million error, McNamar said.

Dayton did veto the tax bill because of a $100 million error, McNamar said. "He didn't do it because of a train (light rail)," McNamar said.

"I was there, he didn't do veto it because of a mistake," Backer said. "He vetoed it because of a train."

In published media reports from June, including WCCO and the StarTribune, Dayton said he'd veto the tax bill because of the $101 million error. Dayton used what is commonly referred to as a pocket veto in which he took no action to pass what was called a bipartisan tax bill.

Backer said light rail is expensive, under used, not practical and takes needed money away from roads, bridges and other transportation needs.

McNamar said he'd support the Twin Cities Metro area raising fees or taxes in that area to fund light rail. Ultimately construction of light rail in the Twin Cities area eases some of the use of roads and bridges. "Light rail cuts down on the traffic construction. It helps prevent the construction of new lanes," McNamar said. If less money is spent on new roads and fixing roads in the Twin Cities area more money will be available to fix roads and bridges in rural Minnesota, McNamar said.

Backer said he wouldn't support allowing the Twin Cities Metro Area to increase its taxes for light rail. Buses are a much better option, he said.

In Weber addresses critics with added comments, a letter to the editors of the Worthington Daily Globe, the honorable Republican state senator from Luverne hopes to clear up what he perceives are misrepresentations in this letter and this one of his "comments to the governor during his recent visit to Worthington."

We'll have to take Weber's word for what he was trying to communicate to the governor, but there's at least one part of the letter that didn't ring true to us. Weber writes:

I urged the governor to call for careful evaluation of existing light rail operations. They are not meeting original projections of ridership, etc.If people do not use it, we do not solve problems of traffic congestion.

The METRO Blue Line set a new annual ridership record and system ridership increased for the 11th time in 12 years as customers took more than 85.8 million rides on buses and trains operated by Metro Transit in 2015. . . .

Ridership on both the Blue and Green light-rail lines continued to grow as customers used the all-day, frequent service to travel to work, school, special events and other destinations. The ability to transfer between light-rail lines in downtown Minneapolis also boosted ridership.

In all, more than 10.6 million rides were taken on the Blue Line, the highest annual ridership since it opened in mid-2004. The previous record of nearly 10.5 million rides was set in 2010. Average weekday ridership topped 30,000 for eight consecutive months.

Nearly 12.4 million rides were taken on the Green Line during its first full year of operation. Average weekday ridership was 37,400 – just under the 2030 forecast of 41,000 rides. Ridership in the Central Corridor, including the Green Line and bus routes 16 and 94, increased by about 30 percent from 2014 to 2015 and has nearly doubled since 2013, when service was provided by buses alone.

Oh. The Green Line's ridership trajectory appears to be following a similar path to that of the Blue Line, formerly known as the Hiawatha Line. In 2009, Minnesota Public Radio's Dan Olson reported in Hiawatha light rail marks five years; what's next?:

Today marks five years of operation for the Hiawatha line, Minnesota's first light rail service.

Ridership is much greater than projected, and that success has helped spark a debate over how te expand transit in the Twin Cities metro area, and how to pay for it. . . .

Five years and 43 million passenger rides later, the Hiawatha line is coping with success.

Metro Transit spokesman Bob Gibbons says ridership for the line, which connects downtown Minneapolis with the Mall of America, is already 20 percent ahead of what ridership was expected to be 11 years from now. . . .

After two years of operations, the region’s second light rail line is exceeding expectations.

Average daily ridership on the Green Line is 37,402, well on its way to the 41,000 daily trips forecast for the year 2030. Investment along the line, which connects downtown St. Paul with downtown Minneapolis, has totaled $4.2 billion, according to Metro Transit estimates. And market-rate housing projects have sprouted all along the route, even as 3,600 units of affordable housing have been created or preserved.

As such, praising the $1 billion Green Line is a sure-fire applause line for politicians in both the east and west metro.

But southwestern Minnesota, a state senator seems certain that voters won't care about facts, but will applaud the place-baiting.

Backer is playing the same game. Don't like statistics and facts? Perhaps rural residents can look at photos of light rail ridership; we've posted one photo snapped on a Sunday afternoon and posted to Facebook the next day by trainwatcher James Oliver Smith Jr.. Smith writes:

.. People Riding Light Rail In The Twin Cities ... Sunday, October 23, 2016 1:23 PM ... Metro Transit Warehouse District/Hennepin Avenue Station ... Minneapolis, Minnesota ... An eastbound Green Line train headed for the Union Depot Station in Lowertown, St Paul approaches the platform ... The lead car of this three-car train is a Siemens S70 Light Rail Vehicle (LRv) ... LRV #254 ... You can pretty much pick any day of the week, or any time of the day, and there will be people on light rail in the Twin Cities ... This photo was taken on a beautiful October Sunday afternoon ... Regardless of what the opposition to rail transit thinks, people are using light rail in large numbers that are exceeding projections and expectations ... Light rail is servicing twice the riders that the bus routes serviced in the same corridors before ... Rail transit of any kind (streetcars, light rail, commuter rail, heavy rail subway) always attracts people, and people attract business and business attracts development ... It always works that way ... We, as a species, are mobile and have places to go, people to see and things to do ... Light rail has brought the Twin Cities into a new, modern, state-of-the-art dimension that helps people go about their daily lives efficiently, comfortably and effectively .

Maybe it's not transit costs that are the problem here. Maybe the problem is Representative Backer's anti-urban bias. Maybe Backer doesn't understand the scale any any issue of large cities--nor the notion that preventing one area from thriving by taxing itself doesn't create instant prosperity in the other.

A loss for the metro doesn't magically translate into gain for rural Minnesota. But Backer has long been fond of strange rural versus urban thinking.

Why do we believe it's a good thing for the country mouse to visit the big city and listen to Dehn's constituents?

The answer is rooted in statements Backer made while Mayor of Browns Valley in 2007, when the city was struck by a flood in those headwaters in the spring and heavy rain in early June. Shane Mercer of the Grand Forks Herald reported in Browns Valley recovering:

BROWNS VALLEY, Minn. - Residents of this western Minnesota town were reminded over the weekend of the brutal flooding that buried a large chunk of the community in March.

Heavy rains forced water over a road on the west side of Browns Valley on Saturday. The waters receded, but were back across the road on Monday.

Mayor Jeff Backer said Monday afternoon he was not aware of any damage to homes, and the areas hardest hit by flooding in March were not affected.

It's not as if residents needed the reminder. Some things are hard to forget. When ice jams forced the Little Minnesota River from its banks and into neighborhoods in March, more than 60 homes in the town of about 650 sustained severe or moderate damage. Backer estimated flood damage to the city at $4 million to $5 million. . . .

That would be less than ten percent of the town's housing stock. We continued:

Mayor Backer compared his town's misery to that of New Orleans, which had been hit by Hurricane Katrina in late August 2005. Mercer reports:

"In my opinion New Orleans would not be in the position that they are in if they had the same people that we have here in Browns Valley," he said, alluding to post-Katrina issues in the Crescent City. "The mentality of the people (in Browns Valley) is, 'What can we do to help?' " ...

As an example of how property values can affect flood relief, Browns Valley Mayor Jeff Backer Jr. said 62 homes were touched by the flood, and 17 were severely damaged. The value of the those homes in this small town in far western Minnesota ranged from $20,000 to $35,000. The city is buying out seven of them. . . .

Backer, whose basement was flooded, said the percentage of houses in his town affected by flooding was equal to those damaged in New Orleans from Hurricane Katrina. . . .

70% of New Orleans' occupied housing, 134,000 units, was damaged in the storm.

That's a far, far greater percentage of the housing in New Orleans than the housing in Browns Valley that was destroyed by the cities' respective natural disasters. It's likely more explanatory of why the City of New Orleans lost so much of its population shortly after what FEMA called "the single most catastrophic natural disaster in U.S. history" than not having "the same people that we have here in Browns Valley."

Screengrabs: The upside-down photo in the Sun Tribune's original online version of the forum article seems like a pretty good visual metaphor (top); a photo of people waiting for a train earlier this month, via James Oliver Smith Jr.'s Facebook page.

If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 33166 770th Ave, Ortonville, MN 56278) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Former MnDOT employee Galen Henjum identifies one special wrinkle in Miller's veracity in a letter to the editor of the West Central Tribune, Taking credit for work by others:

I'm amazed when I see elected officials taking credit for things they didn't do. Tim Miller claims responsibility for getting Highway 12 resurfaced between Benson and Kerkhoven and this is simply not true. That project was included in the state transportation improvement program as far back as 2013 when Andrew Falk was serving as our state representative. I know because I was working there (MnDOT).

Tim Miller takes credit for passing a large transportation bill that is rebuilding roads and bridges. The truth is, Tim Miller passed no long-term comprehensive transportation bill. He simply voted for a "lights-on" transportation bill, which was a continuation of the bill and policies passed by Andrew Falk and the DFL in 2013-2014. . . .

If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 33166 770th Ave, Ortonville, MN 56278) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.